Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More content by people, for people in Search

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 320 posts

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#121

Post by s1k3s »

lloyddobbler wrote: post #107
s1k3s wrote: post #105

> More helpful product reviews written by experts This translates to "more YT videos made by our content-creators", right? Searching for "macbook pro m2 reviews" gives me 5 YT videos at the top, all repeating the same stuff over and over again and (no offense) made by people who aren't really experts. Or are they?

It's the internet. Everyone is an expert! (/s, if it wasn't blatantly obvious.)

What's funny in this specific search for macbook reviews is that the well known websites which really have interesting information AND dig deep in the product specs AND have been there for more than 2 decades are not even on the front page. It's literally just the ones repeating the stuff I can find in Apple's landing page, but rephrased by some copywriter.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#122

Post by progre »

nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

The traditional response when someone hotlinks your images is to goatse them.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#123

Post by [deleted] »

gsatic wrote: post #119
dalbasal wrote: post #95

>> We know people don’t find content helpful if it seems like it was designed to attract clicks rather than inform readers. So... Back when "SEO" was new, I would read the Matt Cutts blog. He was head of "anti-spam." I remember thinking back then that anti-spam was an ignorant frame. Once Google gained importance, websites started trying to improve their rankings. That might mean migrating from Flash to HTML. It migh…

They lost control long long ago. It's basically a Jurassic Park story at this stage.

[deleted]

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#124

Post by [deleted] »

firasd wrote: post #32

I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…

[deleted]

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#125

Post by weystrom »

I wish they'd just un-screw the page ranking algorithm. The quality of search has been steadily going down for quite a while now due to spam getting better and better at SEO.

I'm hopeful for this feature, but I'm not sure how scalable it can prove to be, to help manually rank pages for myriad of topics.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#126

Post by hrdwdmrbl »

meltedcapacitor wrote: post #79
nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using…

> Orgy of Waste school of web design

What is this referring to?

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#127

Post by oefrha »

pyb wrote: post #115
xthestreams wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cnr.it is a domain which belongs to the Italian Research Council, and that subdomain seems to be a blog by the Institute of Microelectronics and Microsystems. These are not scammers, it's probably an amateur researcher which published that information in a blog which is usually read by no-one. Probably it wasn't even meant to be public. But because of the prestige of the domain, it becomes first in relevant searches.…

Still, it appears someone at CNR copy-pasted someone else's blog and published it as their own.

No, the very first thing in the blog post is a link to the original, so it’s highly unlikely they wanted to pretend to be the author.

More like someone who didn’t care much about copyright or license decided to back up information they found useful in their personal blog.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#128

Post by SNlMyhFioa »

nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

I'm seeing your page above the "spam/scam" page.

  #2 cyberciti.biz
  #3 cnr.it

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#129

Post by beastman82 »

meltedcapacitor wrote: post #79
nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using…

You had a great argument until the last sentence

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#130

Post by mikro2nd »

equalsione wrote: post #26
yunohn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn’t write recipes, dedicated and passionate cooks write blogs with recipes in them. I guarantee you that none of them are aiming to provide just a grocery list or instructions, they definitely enjoy writing their story as well. They’re building their own cookbook essentially, not a bunch of lists.

I _think_ OP is referring to the fact that most sites are forced into writing really long form posts because the format is "encouraged" by Google. I don't know the ins and outs but my understanding is that if you don't follow the Google format then you recipe drops way down in Google search results.

No, they're forced into long form posts because recipes cannot be copyrighted. By adding a story you get something with copy rights.
Post reply on HN